Hardening Fixer Doesn't Increase Wash Times ? Show Peer Reviewed Data or Call me Crazy

[mshchem]

You need to have realistic expectations. I said it was close to a scientific account, not that it is a definitive account. The truth is nobody in the scientific community is interested in these kinds of investigations. What funding agency would be interested in offering a grant to study the subject? What journal would you say would be interested in publishing such a paper? Who in the scientific community would be interested in reading it?

It's similar to audiophiles complaining that there are no "scientific," "peer-reviewed" studies of auditory perception of different alloys used in the design of audio cables or solder. And there are a lot more audiophiles and audiophile companies than film photographers and film companies. Nobody cares enough for such studies to exist.

So you can keep complaining or you can do something about it and design a study and do it yourself. It's not that hard, if you are interested in having a ballpark estimate. You don't need millions. You need some simple equipment (buy used from eBay), have it calibrated, buy some materials, and devote several months of your time. Then, publish on the forum. Problem solved.

Who's complaining? This isn't a place to publish.

 

[mshchem]

Here's some fun reading

Journal Archives | Photographic Society of America

 

[mshchem]

Here's some fun reading

Journal Archives | Photographic Society of America

Look at the final edition of 1940, where the authors propose the use of hydrogen peroxide to eliminate hypo. It took 20-30 years to prove this was a bad idea

 

[aparat]

Who's complaining? This isn't a place to publish.

Sorry, you're right. Let me rephrase that, you're not complaining but you are not satisfied with the existing sources on the effectiveness of washing off hardening and non-hardening fixer. Since you're interested in peer-reviewed literature, can I surmise that you are an academic? Just ask yourself if there's even a research question worth pursuing there. In my opinion, there is little there that warrants scientific inquiry. It might be suitable for an undergraduate honors thesis, but I doubt anyone would actually propose it these days. The best one can hope for is a professional journal or conference presentation, but that would not meet your own standard of it being peer-reviewed work, and it would likely be published last century. I agree that it's a very interesting practical question for us film nuts, though.

I think that a public forum is a very good place to publish / present your research into this subject. I am sure a lot of forum members would be curious to see what you find out. I know I would.

Another option is to simply reach out to Ilford / Harman or Foma. They're just a phone call away.

 

[mshchem]

The whole subject isn't worth spending much time on, and certainly not wealth.

Today there's no need for hardener for film at all. No need for hardener with RC paper. The only time hardener is required in my work is to prevent fiber base paper from sticking to the canvas belt of my Pako dryer.

Hardening fixers were standard in black and white processing until the advent of RC papers. Everything, snap shots, "the 8x10 glossy" every print was dried on the big drum dryers. My point is that these prints are still around, mostly single weight so less paper to absorb chemistry etc.

Sorry I brought it up. Peace.

 

[Anon Ymous]

This video clearly shows that use of hardener causes a higher level of hypo retention in film, than use of

• non-hardening fixer, or
• hardening rapid fixer followed by hypo clearning agent

no matter the washing techique used during 2 hours of washing



And [non-hardening fixer] is no different than [hardening rapid fixer + hypo clearing agent] in their ability to achieve archival freedom from residual fixer

That's the former forum member I was talking about at post #2. Quite extensive testing actually, but sadly gone. It was a sticky thread IIRC.

 

[Don_ih]

There is a connection, but no causality.
In order to make a fixer a hardening fixer, it needs to be acidic - hardener won't work in an alkaline environment.
So when the starting point is a need for hardener, the fixer needs to be acidic.

That's not actually what I was talking about. I was saying that I thought it was washing the acidity out of the paper that took longer. But, like I said, I can't recall the source. I also can't recall the source that claimed photo paper is more archival with a small amount of fixer remaining present in the paper (as in, very small). The problem with reading too many articles.

Alkaline fixer also has the disadvantage that, if there is no stop bath in the process, development will continue in the fixer, which outside of the world of monobaths isn't a good thing.

That is a non-existent disadvantage. It's practically impossible that any development could occur in effective alkaline fixer after an enlargement has been fully developed and then rinsed in water. The fixation is too strong for that to occur. You will get redeposited silver when fixer (any fixer) comes into contact with active developer that's been absorbed into the paper - that's a different issue that will happen with any fixer.

 

[ic-racer]

Wether or not it grabs it by the husk or uses some other means, as mentioned, a simple test can be undertaken to answer the question....

 

[mshchem]

Wether or not it grabs it by the husk or uses some other means, as mentioned, a simple test can be undertaken to answer the question....
View attachment 323873

That is Beautiful! Thank You!

 

[Vaughn]

...
Today there's no need for hardener for film at all. No need for hardener with RC paper. The only time hardener is required in my work is to prevent fiber base paper from sticking to the canvas belt of my Pako dryer.
...

When I did not put the hardener in the Rapid Fix, I would get screen impressions into my 16x20 FB print surfaces when drying prints emulsion down of the screens. I went back to adding the hardener (half-strength).

 

[MattKing]

That is a non-existent disadvantage. It's practically impossible that any development could occur in effective alkaline fixer after an enlargement has been fully developed and then rinsed in water.

FWIW, I consider an effective rinse in water to be a good "stop" bath.
By effective, I mean thorough, with enough changes of fresh water. Essentially, a brief wash.
Most people who use a water stop don't do that much, and are thus more vulnerable to development continuing in the alkaline fixer.
This is, of course, most important with heavy, fibre based papers, and least important with film on a PET base.

 

[Don_ih]

FWIW, I consider an effective rinse in water to be a good "stop" bath.
By effective, I mean thorough, with enough changes of fresh water. Essentially, a brief wash.
Most people who use a water stop don't do that much, and are thus more vulnerable to development continuing in the alkaline fixer.
This is, of course, most important with heavy, fibre based papers, and least important with film on a PET base.

Water in a tray is not anywhere near an effective stop bath for paper - although it would be fine for sheet film. It might be ok for the first print but, thereafter, it starts to become weak developer. Even adding a second tray full of water will make an enormous difference. However, it doesn't stop developer that has been absorbed into the paper (because it doesn't replace it). Using running water likely wouldn't dislodge developer that's been absorbed. That requires an acid stop and sufficient time for the all developing action to be killed. With Ilford Art300, that's over one minute in a stop bath.

If the fixer is inactive enough to allow development (even without using a stop or water bath), it should be dumped - because it's no long an effective fixer.

 

[MattKing]

If the fixer is inactive enough to allow development (even without using a stop or water bath), it should be dumped - because it's no long an effective fixer.

I think the problem occurs when the fixer is alkaline, and there is still un-neutralized developer absorbed into the paper.
You can have both fixing and developing happening at the same time - just in respect to different places/depths in the emulsion.

 

[mshchem]

When I did not put the hardener in the Rapid Fix, I would get screen impressions into my 16x20 FB print surfaces when drying prints emulsion down of the screens. I went back to adding the hardener (half-strength).

I can see that could happen. I think that the limiting factor in washing fiber base paper, especially now that everything is on double weight paper is removing the chemicals from the paper base. The emulsion is delicate, especially when toned. I use fresh film strength Kodak rapid fix with hardener, then straight into Kodak selenium toner 1+3, a couple minutes, then fresh Kodak Hypo clearing agent, then quick wash, then into archival print washer.

 

[Rudeofus]

I will behave. I would love to see a modern peer reviewed study. My question is, especially with MODERN materials, that have pre-hardened at the factory emulsions, why would fixer hardener have any significant impact.

I use hardener with fiber base prints because they will stick to the belt of my dryer. I've been working this way for 30 years (this proves nothing!) without any problems.

I think you called the problem: when hardening fixer was still a thing (in the sense of: received attention by the scientific community), films were not prehardened. When films were prehardened, nobody wanted to spend money on tests regarding the now useless hardener. The difference between hardening and non-hardening fixer will be different for every emulsion, so we're looking at a large number of tests to satisfy - well what exactly?

The most relevant effect of new redundant hardener is, that we can now use neutral fixers. They have incredible shelf life and excellent washing speed.

 

[ic-racer]

Here's some fun reading

Journal Archives | Photographic Society of America

Nice link. Check out 1941-02-v7-1.pdf; it has the landmark paper Effective Camera Speeds of Photograpic Negative Materials by Loyd A. Jones and C. N. Nelson plus an analysis of Varigram; variable contras paper.

 

[mshchem]

Nice link. Check out 1941-02-v7-1.pdf; it has the landmark paper Effective Camera Speeds of Photograpic Negative Materials by Loyd A. Jones and C. N. Nelson plus an analysis of Varigram; variable contras paper.

I really enjoy reading this stuff.

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that we never took advantage of the invitation in your thread title.
So in the interest of remedying that: "You're crazy!"
You're welcome.

 

[mshchem]

CRAZY? 3RD SINK 25 LINEAR FEET

 

[mshchem]

Had to move these, put up a wall to make room for the 3rd SINK.

 

[aparat]

It occurs to me that we never took advantage of the invitation in your thread title.
So in the interest of remedying that: "You're crazy!"
You're welcome.

Yeah, but I do feel his frustration. A lot of us wish we could just go to the library and pick up a range of current papers on whichever topic we are interested in and look up the relevant information. But most of the scientific accounts of photography happened in the first half of the 20th. century, and not just because film photography was popular, but because it was an essential tool in the pursuit of science. But even then, practical issues in photography were relegated to professional and trade journals and conferences. Today, nobody cares. Even if an ambitious undergraduate student wanted to pursue a topic related to film photography, they would struggle to find any support for it.

So, as a community of avid film photographers, we can continue chipping away at the outstanding practical issues in film photography, purely as amateurs, and share our findings on the forum. No, we would never produce scientific work, but I think we would get close to at least identifying and exploring some of the practical aspects of the craft.

 

[drfoxmd]

That is a lot of work just to satisfy your curiosity. I'd say take the experts at Kodak and Ilford at their word.

Thank you. Amen

 

[mshchem]

The Theory of the Photographic Process : C.E. Kenneth Mees : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1st edition

archive.org

Finally found Mees (founder and head of Kodak's research labs) 1942 book, pg 535, the fiber base of the paper is far and away the greatest factor in washing prints, not the emulsion. He does mention earlier in the book, discussing film washing that non-hardening fixers or film hardened with chrome alum (the purple crystals Kodak used 75 years ago with E-1 Ektachrome processing) washed faster than prints hardened with potassium alum.

So don't use hardener with film or resin coated PE papers, no need and slows washing.

With fiber base prints the retention of chemicals in the paper is far and away the biggest issue. So use hardener if it is beneficial to your work flow, it is for me.

This book is amazing.

 

[gone]

A lot of us wish we could just go to the library and pick up a range of current papers on whichever topic we are interested in and look up the relevant information

Some do, some don't. I just like to be given some specific information and will figure it out myself. I don't care who put the information together, I don't 100% trust it, on anything. It's simply a lot of words. I want the actual experiential knowledge, and that means I need to see it w/ my own eyes and in my particular situation. Too many so called experts have led me astray, cost me 10's of thousands of dollars, and in one case ended a life before it was necessary.

When it comes to my photography, my life, whatever, there is only one responsible adult that understands all the parameters and can take full responsibility for it's success or failure. Me. The buck stops right there, which is where it belongs.

 

[mshchem]

Some do, some don't. I just like to be given some specific information and will figure it out myself. I don't care who put the information together, I don't 100% trust it, on anything. It's simply a lot of words. I want the actual experiential knowledge, and that means I need to see it w/ my own eyes and in my particular situation. Too many so called experts have led me astray, cost me 10's of thousands of dollars, and in one case ended a life before it was necessary.

When it comes to my photography, my life, whatever, there is only one responsible adult that understands all the parameters and can take full responsibility for it's success or failure. Me. The buck stops right there, which is where it belongs.